Licensure renewal requirements changing - What states?

[LizphD]

Hello all, I am curious which states are changing their licensure renewal requirements from simply needing CE credits to now needing CPD or Continuing Professional Development hours. So far, I see California and Louisiana have these new requirements to obtain hours from a certain number of categories. Any other states doing this? Is this a trend?

California: Regulation Advisory: Continuing Professional Development California Board of Psychology
Louisiana: Licensee - Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

A 'solution' in search of a 'problem' if you ask me. Sigh.

At least it's consistent with every other aspect of life these days...the unending trend of EVERYTHING to become progressively: (a) more complicated, (b) more expensive, and (c) more burdensome over time.

 

[WisNeuro]

A 'solution' in search of a 'problem' if you ask me. Sigh.

At least it's consistent with every other aspect of life these days...the unending trend of EVERYTHING to become progressively: (a) more complicated, (b) more expensive, and (c) more burdensome over time.

Yeah, not a fan. There is so much variability of what people do day-to-day, and the experiences that they already have, that slowly building up requirements as a sizable chunk of their CEs will not be a good "one size fits all" approach.

 

[foreverbull]

In CA, some of the CEs granted for different activities in the CPD model provided are ridiculous and oddly arbitrary.
ONE CE to attend a day-long conference that you’ll probably pay hundreds out of pocket for. Six CEs to teach a semester long psychology course…..that you would spend hundreds of hours on. Six CEs granted for serving an entire year in a professional psychology organization. Nine CEs to publish in a peer reviewed journal.

None of these even come close to meeting the 36 hour requirement, yet take a huge amount of time.

The CPD model benefits psychologists in academia most, who are already paid to teach, write grants, publish, and get their conferences completely paid for. In one fell swoop, their CEs are mostly covered by those activities without spending a single cent or more time than their daily job.

The model seems to penalize private practitioners who work a full schedule and don’t have the time to engage in those kinds of pursuits.

It’s maddening to be micromanaged to this degree and to create a model that clearly benefits some over others based on career track. To create a system in which one track’s paid job duties already meet CA requirements “just because” while another career track meets none at all is not a fair system, in my opinion.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

In CA, some of the CEs granted for different activities in the CPD model provided are ridiculous and oddly arbitrary.
ONE CE to attend a day-long conference that you’ll probably pay hundreds out of pocket for. Six CEs to teach a semester long psychology course…..that you would spend hundreds of hours on. Six CEs granted for serving an entire year in a professional psychology organization. Nine CEs to publish in a peer reviewed journal.

None of these even come close to meeting the 36 hour requirement, yet take a huge amount of time.

The CPD model benefits psychologists in academia most, who are already paid to teach, write grants, publish, and get their conferences completely paid for. In one fell swoop, their CEs are mostly covered by those activities without spending a single cent or more time than their daily job.

The model seems to penalize private practitioners who work a full schedule and don’t have the time to engage in those kinds of pursuits.

It’s maddening to be micromanaged to this degree and to create a model that clearly benefits some over others based on career track. To create a system in which one track’s paid job duties already meet CA requirements “just because” while another career track meets none at all is not a fair system, in my opinion.

Agreed.

And I'm just gonna say it. The purported function of *required* CEUs is total BS, okay. Requiring annual CEUs does not 'protect the public' from incompetent practitioners---I've seen plenty of them who fulfill/pass this requirement annually, no problem.

'Staying up to date on the relevant literature' is something that someone either does, on their own and of their own volition or not...regardless of over-engineered CEU categories/systems. It's all 'for show' so that boards can *appear* to be rigorously evaluating/ensuring competence/knowledge (which we know they don't). The only way to validly do that would be prohibitively expensive, labor intensive, and unpopular---you'd have to have experts listen to tapes and rate them and provide feedback (and even that would be contentious). At some point, we've passed all the professional hurdles (undergrad, grad school, internship, postdoc) and--as long as we are ethically practicing within the bounds of standards of care/practice--that should be good enough.

Besides, if the CEU requirement were a valid way of ensuring competence (with any utility whatsoever) then, logically, there would have to be SOME people who---despite their best efforts--FAIL to successfully 'pass' the annual CEU hurdle. Besides simply failing to take the courses/tests or attending conferences and report on them, no one actually ever 'fails' this annual requirement. Stated differently, if everyone always passes this annual hurdle (without exception), then how is it not simply just a huge and expensive pro forma waste of time?

 

[WisNeuro]

It's definitely easy for someone to accrue CEUs without really learning much of anything and with fairly minimal expense. Plenty of online "courses" where you don't even have to watch the course to be able to meet the correct answer threshold for the CE. And, the more you parcel out what's required, the more this will happen.

As it stands now, I don't mind general CE requirements as I can choose what I need. For example, recent CEs about the forensic uses of the MMPI-3. Directly relevant to a large part of my practice. Now, if someone never uses the MMPI or does not practice forensically, simply a waste.

I'm also concerned that we're picking and choosing what's important for "public safety" mostly by fiat or the current trend of the times. Honestly, why don't we have 6+ required hours in stats and research evaluation? That'd be more important for public safety than any of the requirements I've seen in most states.